*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres's report and recommendation (the “Report”) regarding the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment (DE 38; DE 39). The report recommends that Defendant's motion be granted and Plaintiff's motion denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the report on October 6, 2017 (DE 65) and Defendant filed a reply on October 19, 2017 (DE 66).

The Court has independently reviewed Judge Torres' comprehensive, 62-page Report; the objections and reply to the Report; the briefing filed by the Parties; and the record. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Court agrees that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Specifically, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the absence of actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition. Plaintiff maintains that notice is not required in cases where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, or in cases where Plaintiff has alleged negligent maintenance. But Judge Torres' detailed Report contains a very thorough analysis of these alternative arguments, and concludes that neither of those arguments warrant a denial of Defendant's summary judgment motion, because they are either not legally or are not factually supported on this record. The Court agrees. Finally, the Court notes that the arguments regarding Carnival's failure to preserve the broken chair that are presented in Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as discussed in the Report, do not amount to spoliation such that an adverse inference is warranted.

In her objections, Plaintiff contends that the Report misapplied the res ipsa standard under Maritime Law, that it erroneously rejected Plaintiff's negligent maintenance arguments, that it reached an erroneous conclusion regarding whether the cruise ship had constructive notice of the dangerous condition and on the issue of spoliation, and that it misapplied the summary judgment standard. The Court has considered Plaintiffs arguments with regard to each of these claims—which reiterate a number of the arguments made in their initial briefs—and finds them unavailing.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 23rd day of March, 2018.